Environmental news from California and beyond

« Previous | Greenspace Home | Next »

The melting Arctic: a bigger-than-estimated impact on climate

Greenland ice AP
The dramatic shrinking of Arctic sea ice and the Northern Hemisphere's glaciers and snowfields has reduced the radiation of sunlight back into space more than scientists previously predicted, according to a new study in the journal Nature Geoscience.

As a result, the ocean and land mass exposed by the melting ice and snow have absorbed more heat, contributing to global warming.

The "albedo" effect, in which the blinding white cover reflects sunshine, has been calculated in numerous computer-generated climate models. But the new study goes beyond those theoretical calculations. Using field measurements and satellite observations, a team led by University of Michigan researcher Mark Flanner found that the warming effect of the loss of snow and ice is "substantially larger" than was predicted in the estimates of 18 climate models.

On average, Earth's temperature has risen about 0.8 degrees Celsius (1.4 degrees Fahrenheit) since the Industrial Revolution, driven by the increase in heat-trapping carbon dioxide and other gases released by the burning of coal and oil. But the warming effect is uneven, with polar regions heating up much more than the lower latitudes.

Global warming skeptics have often claimed that climate models exaggerate ongoing climate change. But the new study of Arctic sea ice and snow on land documented the opposite: Climate models, in this important area, underestimate the effects. The findings add urgency to demands that the U.S., China and other major greenhouse gas polluters curb their emissions and switch to cleaner fuels.

Flanner and his colleagues measured ice and snow between 1979 and 2008. They found that ice and snow in the Northern Hemisphere are now reflecting on average 3.3 watts of solar energy per square meter back to space, a reduction of 0.45 watts per square meter over three decades.

In snow- and ice-covered regions, Flanner said, "observations show a stronger response to recent warming than anticipated." But he noted that the Arctic melting is just one of the major factors that will influence the future climate. "Changes in atmospheric water and clouds are the two other big players," he said.


The World in 2050: The Arctic and everything below

Obama faces a tricky decision on the polar bear

Global Warming: A rise in river flows

--Margot Roosevelt

Photo: Icebergs float in a bay off Ammassalik Island, Greenland. Summer sea ice in Arctic regions has shrunk dramatically over the past decade. Credit: John McConnico /Associated Press 

Comments () | Archives (45)

The comments to this entry are closed.

This phenomenon will surely affect the lives of every living organism most especially to human. The climatic condition is getting worse and so with the environment. Time will come, it will become worst and the next generation will suffer, because of the doings in the past. I just hope, God will give solution to this so that our children will enjoy the beauty of life.

The global temperature change of 1.4 degrees F since the industrial revolution appears to be wrong. The NOAA/NCDC dataset and charts show the trend is only 0.14 degrees F per century. You appear to be off by a factor of 10.
Visit this site:

The first chart depicts the Annual Global Temperature Change from 1880-2010 vs the rising levels of CO2. It is very obvious that temperature changes globally are within natural variability. There has been little or no impact of the rising levels of CO2 on global temperatures.

Claims of unprecedented warming during the last decade is false. See the 3d chart presented. Again, notice that the impact of increasing levels of CO2 are
little to nothing, if any at all.

Warming is occurring because of the rebound from the little ice age at the rate noted above, 0.14 degrees per century. This is natural and not man made.
Otherwise, the temperature trends depicted would have shown an upward
slant following that of the rise of CO2 levels. They do not. CO2 can't be the villian. To claim so is like reading a page from the book of scientific stupidity.

The poles do not face the sun so there will always be cold coming out of the regions during the winter for the hemispheres. But hotter summers mean more evaporation and a stronger or greater temperature difference and change. That means areas will see bigger stronger storms,while other areas will experience deeper longer droughts. Think of it as waveform oscillations with a greater amplitude because frequency is set by the earths tilt and rotation. Climate change is already happening, the only question is how it will affect human society over time. Other factors have caused climate change in earths past, but that doesn't mean we can or should ignore it now. It is more dangerous now because there are more people who need food and water and sanitation. Plus, food cost is affected by climate events, even when you personally have a source of food.

It is nice to know what scientists that are concerned with gobal have to say and write about. ONE BIG PROBLEM: What about the ash and sulfur, etc coming from volcanoes in the recent years that have added to polution problem plus the methane gas from cows and land waste areas. If you reduce the last two there is a chance of reverseal efect taking place. Think about and then make your comments.

yawn...and here in Boston, we have over 60 inches of snow on the ground this year. Global warming is a joke...and so are the lakers.

GO CELTICS...bwahaha

This, of course, is assuming that the world doesn't end in 2012.

yarbels, apart from yourself, how many people live on Mars?

Well I see the water carriers for the oil guys are on here. How much do the Koch brothers pay you to sell your soul?

Well, now isn't that just great. Obama, while the commie leader is still here, tell him to wind down his economy and stop using so many fossil-based fuels. Also, tell India as well. Yea, they will listen, right? Have a great day!

Oops.. we were only off on our Co2 assumptions by DOUBLE the entire human contribution, sorry our bad. I'm thinking they should KNOW little details like this BEFORE you declare the "science settled". Actually you should know things like this before you are allowed to even CALL it "science"..

Global Warming Predictions Are Overestimated, Suggests Study On Black Carbon

A new Cornell study, published online in Nature Geosciences, quantified the amount of black carbon in Australian soils and found that there was far more than expected

By entering realistic estimates of stocks of black carbon in soil from two Australian savannas into a computer model that calculates carbon dioxide release from soil, the researchers found that carbon dioxide emissions from soils were reduced by about 20 percent over 100 years, as compared with simulations that did not take black carbon's long shelf life into account.

The findings are significant because soils are by far the world's largest source of carbon dioxide, producing 10 times more carbon dioxide each year than all the carbon dioxide emissions from human activities combined. Small changes in how carbon emissions from soils are estimated, therefore, can have a large impact.

Melts in the Summer, freezes in the Winter. You (so called) journalists should do some unbiased research before posting these articles. By the way... The Arctic is an Ocean, not a land mass. The ice comes from the Ocean and when melting, returns to the Ocean.. Try this.... Fill an empty glass with ice cubes and wait for the ice to melt... Did it overflow the rim of the glass? Duh..... Rising sea levels.. my arse.

"What failed at Copenhagen was not just the summit. A notion of establishing the UN as a sort of world government through the use of climate politics -- has also failed."
(Die Welt -German news paper -Referring to EU President Speech )
No Thanks.
Carbon racket is a tool for one worlders , that want to see planet under one rule and have latched to this carbon BS because it allows them into everything in every country, EU president even admits this .
Climate always changes get used to it, AGWscamers cannot stop any change they will just run with your money.
Since the icecaps on Mars are melting, who should we blame for it on Mars? Hint: Mars does not have SUVs..or coal power plants
AGW fraud is just that a fraud. More importantly I will not waste my money towards any effort to prevent climate change. I would use it to adapt to any change that may occur, if it occurs and when it occurs . So no money from me towards aiding and abetting carbon racketeering also known as cap n trade.
I advocate we look at RICO type laws (Anti-Organized crime) to go after the Democratic Carbon racketeers.I can be contacted at work and yes please keep those jokes coming! Typical Democrats trying to steal from the poor to increase their own "green" At least the rest of the world is on to this scam. Oh wait it must be true! Al Gore said it was and he invented the Internet! Just ask him! Me I am all for climate change I just have not made up my mind yet if I want warmer or colder....thanks for the laugh now stop stealing my tax dollars for your scam!

laws of thermodynamics....
when you add energy to a chaotic system you get greater chaos.
Its pretty obvious that human activities are adding a lot of energy to the Earth's climate system, whether it was in equilibrium or not.
Our global climate is, from ALL the data available, increasingly unstable.
Are deniers trying to say that human activity does NOT release huge amounts of energy into the system, while at the same time we are busily removing those mechanisms that help moderate fluctuations, such as chopping down and burning forests , burning vast amounts of fossil fuels that were previously safely trapped miles underground, polluting the oceans to a point where it is becoming more acidic, in turn damaging food supplies...
If you don't deny the activities then you can't deny the effects.
Around the world, there were about 806 million cars and light trucks on the road in 2007; they burn over 1 billion m³ (260 billion US gallons) of petrol/gasoline and diesel fuel yearly. Up to a million aircraft burning fuels directly into the stratosphere. 55,000 large commercial ships , plus the various navies. The gross amounts of pollution caused by our wars. 7 billion ( almost, and rising fast) people cooking food and keeping their house warm, etc etc
Do you think this has no effect?
If you deny the activities then in effect you deny your own existence.
There are more and more people and less and less resources and we are far beyond sustainability already.
Pinch yourself and wake up. The environmental nightmare is not far around the corner.
Let those who have eyes see

"When you add energy to a system in equlibrium you produce chaos."

Except of course, that the earth's weather system is never, ever, ever, in equilibrium.

@horsesforcourses January 19, 2011 at 08:03 AM

I'm not aware (I haven't read all posts) that someone challenged thermodynamic principles but I'm certain it wasn't me. That said there are, however, a multitude of contraindications in trying to solidify the forcings and feedbacks. For example NOAA data shows outgoing longwave radiation from 90S to 90N went from 232 W/m2 when CO2 was 330ppm to 228W/M2 at 360ppm and back to 232 W/m2 with CO2 at 390ppm.

If one believes that TSI flux is constant and that CO2 is well mixed in the atmosphere, what accounts for the increase back to 232 W/m2 with CO2 at 390ppm?

The ARGO data is showing ocean heat content has been cooling since 2003. With heat trapping GHGs causing an increase in back radiation, shouldn't ocean heat content have risen since 2003? Is there a missing or under-represented feedback of some sort?

@margot roosevelt | January 18, 2011 at 10:03 AM

Thank you Margot, you're a gem. I will read the paper

The warmer the better in Colorado brrrr.

I'm all for global warming!

Let it melt let it melt let it melt.

Doesn't this mean we'll have more cold water to drink? Or, perhaps it means we are not praying hard or loud enough? Oh, it could mean we don't have enough faith? Nah, I think it might mean we don't know enough science to save our own butts because it's not yet cost effective.

when global warming deniers figure out a way to dispute the laws of thermodynamics let me know.
When you add energy to a system in equlibrium you produce chaos.
As for the " this is part of the normal cycle so its OK" advocates. Please tell me how many humans were on the planet last time there was this kind of global climate change? here's a clue: NONE!

"There is no problem on this planet that wouldn't be made better with less people, or worse with more"

Laa.. Co2 laa.. laa Co2 laa.. la..

It's funny who people who believe what the science says are considered the "deniers" while the so called believers not only ignore the science they hold it out as their smoking gun. Will somebody please CALL the following people.. NOAA, NASA, National Snow and Ice Data Center, Office of Naval Research, National Science Foundation. (remember NO emailing) And PLEASE re-explain how the whole "science is settled" thing is supposed to work..

NSIDC (National Snow and Ice Data Center)
January 5, 2011
Repeat of a negative Arctic Oscillation leads to warm Arctic, low sea ice extent

March 3, 2010
Double-dip Arctic Oscillation continues negative pattern yields low sea ice extent

January 5, 2010
Negative Arctic Oscillation yields a warm Arctic low sea ice extent

2009 the Arctic Oscillation yields index value of -3.41, the most negative value since at least 1950, according to data from the NOAA Climate Prediction Center.

November 13, 2007 Sees Arctic Ocean Circulation Do an About-Face
"Our study confirms many changes seen in upper Arctic Ocean circulation in the 1990s were mostly decadal in nature, rather than trends caused by global warming,"

NOAA, Office of Naval Research, National Science Foundation, and NASA.
Dec. 29, 2004 Arctic Oscillation Root Cause Of Decline In Sea Ice is Winds, Ice Motion , Not Warmer Temperatures

The melting of polar ice represents a huge heat sink, because it takes the same energy to melt 1 kg of ice as to heat 1kg of water by 80 degrees centigrade, or to heat 29 cubic metres of air by 1 degree centigrade.
So melting of polar ice absorbs huge amounts of heat, by turning ice at 0 degrees centigrade to water at 0 degrees centigrade. When the ice is all gone, suddenly there is nowhere for that heat to go other than increasing water and air temperature.
That is one thing that makes the loss of polar ice and glacial ice so significant.
Secondly when the arctic ice is gone, the gulf stream might stop, since ice cooling that water is thought to be an engine driving the current. Then some kind of ice age will happen in Europe.

If you start from a false hypothesis your results can't "prove it". Whatever the EFFECTS of melting ice the CAUSE is MOSTLY normal climate oscillations,


At least according to to Rush Limbaugh oops.. I meant NASA..

NASA Sees Arctic Ocean Circulation Do an About-Face

"Our study confirms many changes seen in upper Arctic Ocean circulation in the 1990s were mostly decadal in nature, rather than trends caused by global warming,"

A team of NASA and university scientists has detected an ongoing reversal in Arctic Ocean circulation triggered by atmospheric circulation changes that vary on decade-long time scales.

"While some 1990s climate trends, such as declines in Arctic sea ice extent, have continued, these results suggest at least for the 'wet' part of the Arctic -- the Arctic Ocean -- circulation reverted to conditions like those prevalent before the 1990s," he added.

@Colin, Steve, Kaonashi, Mudu

Wow. Tough crowd. (Actually, rude and belittling would be a better way to describe your comments. Do you treat people you encounter face-to-face that way, too?)

I cited the NSID report because it is an accepted data report by the general scientific community. My question was not to "gloat" (??) or to (stupidly) undermine my point that the arctic ice is increasing (during winter, yes) but to point out that, indeed, it is increasing. The melting period was short this year, but it is still increasing. Despite increasing temperatures globally, it has increased since the record low of 2007. So, why isn't that part of the discussion? Doesn't that interest you? Sea ice is higher than normal (December 2010) in the Pacific region - the Bering Sea off the coast of Alaska, but is disappearing from the Atlantic side. So, the ice coverage seems to be shifting in locale. Yes? So would this negate the albedo effect?

Honest questions. Can they be answered respectfully and with courtesy? That remains to be seen with this crowd.

I see many of you are pretending to be a moron, stop pretending there is no need anymore. I know you are smarter than that. I know that you know that a dentist is not heart surgeon, and the auto mechanic does not work in the field of psychology and the ideologue does not practice science. I know you know that if you took the "Al Gore" out of this issue you would not have a problem with real actual science and not someone who slept a comfortable night at the Holiday inn pretending. So many of you - stop pretending to be a moron - there is no need anymore - OK?

let it warm let it warm let it warm. I'm all for global warming. It's darn cold here!

Jay, I can field that one. When states incentivize manufacturing of, say PV panels, in their own states, then manufacturing comes home. Washington state has a feed in tariff law they are working on that offers something small (maybe 17 cents/kWH?) for clean power produced on local rooftops, but if the ratepayer-generator (aka regular middle class family) uses a local installer and local panels, they will be paid 54 cents/kWh for the power.

Win/win/win/win - the middle class family SAVES money by not paying electricity bills, they MAKE money by being paid for producing clean power where it is needed, and their PROPERTY VALUE increases because of the capital improvement and lower operating cost. Meanwhile, jobs are created (installation and manufacturing) right in the state, ratepayers do NOT have to pay the enormous costs of Big Solar, Big Wind and Big Transmission so they save money, too (this is proven by UCLA among others), and open spaces are preserved, GHG emissions are hugely reduced, and air is cleaned.

The alternative, Big Energy of all types, will result in huge spikes in cost (fossil and wind and solar), huge GHG emissions (again, from all types of fuels), dead wilderness (from mountaintop removal to millions of acres of deserts bulldozed and industrialized), wasted water, eminent domain, and Chinese jobs.

We have choices. Local solutions that improve the economy and the environment or Big Energy disasters. Up to us...

Arctic warming isn't what you have been told. Kaufman et al. tell us that it started suddenly at the beginning of the twentieth century, after two thousand years of slow cooling. It paused in midcentury, then resumed, and is still going strong. These are the observed facts. But what caused it to start suddenly, pause for a while, and then continue? The authors attribute all this to the greenhouse effect - what else can a climate scientist say? Their problem is that despite their titles as climate scientists they do not understand the physics of the greenhouse effect. The absorptivity of carbon dioxide in the infrared is a physical property of the gas and cannot be changed. If you want to increase its absorption of radiation for the purpose of starting the warming they observed you can only do this by putting more gas in the air, and we know this did not happen. Hence, it is physically impossible that the sudden warming at the turn of the twentieth century had anything to do with carbon dioxide. But the warming is real, covers a large geographic area, and somehow can be modulated as the pause in midcentury indicates. Of all the possible alternate causes of warming ocean currents are the only way of delivering such massive warming, withholding it for a while, and restarting it. It is highly likely that a rearrangement of the North Atlantic current system at the beginning of the twentieth century started the warming. We know that the Gulf Stream today delivers a huge amount of warm water to the Arctic and keeps the Russian Arctic ice free in the summer. It probably assumed its present northerly course at the turn of the century when the Arctic warming began. In addition to the Gulf Stream a lesser amount of warm water enters the Arctic through the Bering Strait. It keeps the Chuckchi Sea, just north of the strait, ice free in the summer. In 2007 more than the usual amount of warm water entered this way and melted a huge batch of ice on that side of the Arctic while the Gulf Stream side in the Russian Arctic hardly changed. Together, these sources of warm water entering the Arctic from both sides can explain all the observations of Arctic warming for the last century without invoking the greenhouse effect which we know is physically impossible. The models that attempt to predict the future of Arctic warming cannot give meaningful results because they use carbon dioxide as input. Garbage in, garbage out or GIGO is what their predictions produce at Uncle Sam's expense.

To Sundance: Sorry, i initially forgot to post the link to the journal Nature Geoscience, but have now added it. Here it is:

“The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot. Reports all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatatures in the arctic zone. Expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met with as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.”

—US Weather Bureau, 1922

"On average, Earth's temperature has risen about 0.8 degrees Celsius (1.4 degrees Fahrenheit) since the Industrial Revolution, driven by the release of heat-trapping carbon dioxide and other gases released by the burning of coal and oil."

Where is the scientific attribution data for this conclusion? I think Greenpeace interpruted the science and shaped the article to fit their agenda. They didn't provode a link to the paper. There are numerous recent studies showing Co2 to be one of the least significant factors in Arctic heat flux. For example the A-train satellite grouping recently detected a significant loss of Arctic cloud cover as the primary reason for the 2007 record Arctic minimum.

Soot and ocean circulation have also been implicated as major contributors to recent Arctic summer retreat. Then there is mounting evidence that there where many interglacial times when Arctic Ice had lower summer extent than now and likely was ice free in the summer just in the last 10,000 years.

Abstract: Cores from site HLY0501-05 on the Alaskan margin in the eastern Chukchi Sea were analyzed for their geochemical (organic carbon, d13Corg, Corg/N, and CaCO3) and palynological (dinocyst, pollen, and spores) content to document oceanographic changes during the Holocene. The chronology of the cores was established from 210Pb dating of nearsurface sediments and 14C dating of bivalve shells. The sediments span the last 9000 years, possibly more, but with a gap between the base of the trigger core and top of the piston core. Sedimentation rates are very high (*156 cm/ka), allowing analyses with a decadal to centennial resolution. The data suggest a shift from a dominantly terrigenous to marine input from the early to late Holocene. Dinocyst assemblages are characterized by relatively high concentrations (600–7200 cysts/cm3) and high species diversity, allowing the use of the modern analogue technique for the reconstruction of sea-ice cover, summer temperature, and salinity. Results indicate a decrease in sea-ice cover and a corresponding, albeit
much smaller, increase in summer sea-surface temperature over the past 9000 years. Superimposed on these long-term
trends are millennial-scale fluctuations characterized by periods of low sea-ice and high sea-surface temperature and salinity that appear quasi-cyclic with a frequency of about one every 2500–3000 years. The results of this study clearly show that sea-ice cover in the western Arctic Ocean has varied throughout the Holocene. More importantly, there have been times when sea-ice cover was less extensive than at the end of the 20th century.

Data from Greenland ice cores also support lower temperatures in the past.

I will look at the study for myself but this article is too narrow in scope to be meaningful.

It's really sad how ppl have destroyed the earth with all the pollutants and chemicals from their convenience living. I think all plastics in diapers and sanitary products should be banned, and all other plastics recycled. Plastic can be very durable and used along with materials in cars. Rubber tires can be recycled and used as well making the cars bounce and safer to reduce accident damages, people are just plain stupid and want the easiest way possible so trillions of plastics go into the ground. I think everyone should be made to watch the movie idiocrasy. It says it all.

Paint all rooftops white until the next ice age then black when we get cold. Any modifications beyond what a building owner can do in a couple of days will be too much change with unknown consequences.

The report Volleymom cites doesn't mean what she apparently thinks it means. It says quite clearly that by the end of summer Artic ice was the third lowest recorded since 1979. That's evidence of climate change.

She seems to gloat about the report saying that ice is growing.

All that means is that it's the depth of winter now and ice is forming again. Does anyone actually believe that because it's cold in January in the Arctic that that disproves global warming? The climate of the Arctic continues to undergo profound disruptive change. To say otherwise requires a lack of understanding what is written that is both sad and dangerous.

Don't be selective with your quotes, "valleymom." Yes, the report says that Arctic ice is growing; of course it's growing, it is winter, after all. But the seasonal growth in ice is still less than the average measured from 1979-2000. Look at the whole article; examine the graphs that show that year round, Arctic sea ice is substantially reduced. You'll see that this does not contradict the LA Times article or the Nature Geoscience report on which it's based.

In short, "valleymom," don't just pick out a sentence here and there. Look at the ice itself, while you still can.

By the way, the site you cited, is a very useful one for people seriously interested in climate change science. It contains useful links and faqs that explain the more technical details for the general reader.

It is simple, just ask our Christian brethren to ask God to stabilize the world in which he has given us dominion...which includes the right to pollute to our heart's content with no consequences.

Considering man's contribution to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is comparable to adding a pint of water to an 80,000 gallon pool, sun spots, volcanoes etc certainly do have a higher effect on climate.

Growing,.. well above average,.. dropped back to within about standard deviation...ummmm???? hello...

"A note on Antarctica
While sea ice is growing in the Arctic, it is early summer in the Antarctic and sea ice is melting. For the past four months, Antarctic sea ice extent has remained well above average. The high ice extent around Antarctica appears to relate to a persistently positive phase of the Southern Annular Mode—an Antarctic counterpart to the Arctic Oscillation—and to the mild La Niña conditions in the Pacific. In December 2010, the monthly mean Southern Annular Mode index was lower, and Antarctic sea ice extent had dropped back to within about standard deviation of the mean."

valleymom: thank you for the link but it only proves that you engage in selective reading. There is nothing there that refutes information in the article. The ice is growing in the arctic now because it is winter. It is summer now in the Antarctic so therefore the ice is melting. In both cases that is exactly what is expected. Why would you find that surprising? It wasn't mentioned in the article because IT IS NOT RELAVENT. If you were in my science class you'd get a "D".

You need to keep up to date. The Antarctic ice has been below average for the past month. The Arctic ice is growing because it is winter, ice always forms in winter in the Arctic. The ice level has been at the lowest ever recorded level the entire month of January until yesterday. Hudson bay is not frozen over yet. Usually it freezes over in November. In any case it is the long term trends that are important. The trend is clearly down and getting worse. Action needs to be taken.

Valleymom, I know it is confusing, but pay attention:

"While sea ice is growing in the Arctic, it is early summer in the Antarctic and sea ice is melting. For the past four months, Antarctic sea ice extent has remained well above average."

Sea ice is growing in the Arctic because it is winter there, and thus colder. Why the sea ice extent is above average in the Antarctic, where it is currently summer, is unstated, but the Antarctic is a continent and thus it is likely that warmer temperatures are causing the ice to slide of the continental shelf and into the sea more rapidly.

The key point, though, is this: "Despite a late date of the maximum in winter sea ice extent, the minimum sea ice extent (for the Arctic) for September 2010 was third lowest in the 1979 to 2010 satellite record, above only 2007 (the record low) and 2008." This clearly states that Arctic ice is disappearing.

Try parsing a bit more before commenting.

@Valleymom "Arctic sea ice is GROWING"

It's growing because it's January. It'll start melting in March/April. It's a little thing climate scientists call Winter at the moment.

Now we arrest the news editors for leading the world to a false war against a false enemy of climate change. Call your DA!


Your selective quotes notwithstanding, the report you cite cuts against the point you're trying to make... across the board.

Go back to elementary school and leave the big ideas to adults.

@join350org "It is time for a green energy economy, it will bring jobs, manufacturing and a middle class back to this country."

How are you suppose to have a green economy when everything is manufactured in China?

Wait a second...the NSID (National Snow and Ice Data center) said this in their January 5th report about Arctic sea ice:

"Despite a late date of the maximum in winter sea ice extent, the minimum sea ice extent for September 2010 was third lowest in the 1979 to 2010 satellite record, above only 2007 (the record low) and 2008."

And they conclude the report by saying:

"While sea ice is growing in the Arctic, it is early summer in the Antarctic and sea ice is melting. For the past four months, Antarctic sea ice extent has remained well above average."

Arctic sea ice is GROWING and the Antarctic ice is well above average. Shouldn't that have been mentioned in the article?

The deniers will probably say it is due to sunspots...??? or volcanoes... or something other than man made gas. It can't possibly be because of humans, because they say so and they just don't believe it. According to the deniers, science is for dummies anyways.

It is time for a green energy economy, it will bring jobs, manufacturing and a middle class back to this country.


Recommended on Facebook


In Case You Missed It...


Recent News
Invitation to connect on LinkedIn |  December 12, 2013, 9:58 am »
New Cook Islands Shark Sanctuary proposed |  December 8, 2011, 8:00 am »